Case Law Details
Sidharth Vijay Shah Vs Union of India and others (Bombay High Court)
From a reading of section 110-A, as extracted above, it is evident that any goods, documents or things seized or bank account provisionally attached under section 110 may, pending the order of adjudicating authority, be released to the owner or the bank account holder on taking a bond from him in the proper form with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require. Thus, this provision confers a right on the owner to seek provisional release of seized goods etc., while at the same time a corresponding discretionary power is vested on the adjudicating authority who may release the seized goods etc. upon a bond with such security and conditions pending order of the adjudicating authority. Though much emphasis has been placed by the respondents on categorization of the imported vehicle as a prohibited good as defined under sub-section (33) of section 2, we do not find any limitation imposed in section 110-A that a good which is categorized as a prohibited good under section 2(33) cannot be subjected to provisional release under section 110-A. The words “goods, documents and things seized” are expressions of general import without any qualifications and / or are not accompanied by any qualifying words. Therefore, no restriction or restrictive meaning can be read into the said expressions which is not contemplated by the statute.
As a matter of fact, section 110A provides a pragmatic mechanism to facilitate provisional release of seized goods etc. to the owner pending adjudication but at the same time protecting the interest of the revenue. Keeping the above in mind, the provision is required to be understood and applied.
From the above, it is seen that in that case also stand taken by the respondents was that the imported Ferrari F 430 vehicle was a second hand car which would attract customs duty at a much higher rate, at that point of time 167% in addition to penalty and interest. Adjudication proceedings were still pending. In that case, order for provisional release was passed with conditions which were found to be somewhat harsh. In such circumstances, this Court modified the order of provisional release by directing provisional release of the Ferrari F 430 car subject to petitioner executing a bond for full value and furnishing bank guarantee of any nationalized bank for Rs.15 lakhs. Further condition imposed was that petitioner should not create any third party right, title or interest in the said imported car till adjudication proceedings reached finality.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
